The NY Times has published a series of articles today about the transition to renewable energy. The articles (there are three of them) are interesting both for what they say and also for what they reveal about certain assumptions made by the NY Times itself.

In an article titled “The Clean Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think” the authors reveal that red states are embracing new technology, not because they are desperate for AOC’s approval but because it makes sense financially.

Tulsa, a former boomtown once known as the “Oil Capital of the World” where the minor league baseball team is the Drillers, is immersed in a new energy revolution.

At the port, an Italian company, Enel, is building a $1 billion solar panel factory. The bus factory is operated by Navistar, one of the biggest commercial vehicle makers in the world. And the city’s main electric utility, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, now harvests more than 28 percent of its power from wind…

“We have a tremendous sense of pride in our history,” said Dewey F. Bartlett Jr., the Republican former mayor of Tulsa who was an oil and gas executive but now helps recruit clean energy companies to the region. “But we also understand that energy is energy, whether it is generated by wind, steam or whatever it might be.”…

About two-thirds of the new investment in clean energy is in Republican-controlled states, where policymakers have historically resisted renewables. But with each passing month, the politics seem to matter less than the economics.

“We’re the reddest state in the country, and we’re an oil and gas state,” said J.W. Peters, president of Solar Power of Oklahoma. “So it took a lot of time to convince people that this wasn’t snake oil.”

Mr. Peters was broke six years ago, with less than $400 in his checking account after his contracting business slowed down. Then he responded to a help-wanted ad looking for workers to install solar panels, which were becoming more popular in Tulsa. He now employs 61 workers and has $18 million in annual sales. “The environmental benefits are nice,” he said, “but most people are doing this for the financial opportunity.”

The top comment on this story is from a reader who gets it:

“The environmental benefits are nice,” he said, “but most people are doing this for the financial opportunity.”

This is the key. We can continue brow-beating people about the dangers of climate change, the miserable future for our children if we don’t stop, the devastation of extreme environmental events, but none of it gets through like a dollars and cents explanation.

We own a Tesla and a Chevy Bolt. The #1 question we get asked about both cars: How much does it cost to charge them?

We have 24 solar panels on the roof. The #1 question we get asked about them: How much did it cost to install them and what’s our electric bill now?

Everybody we talk to wants to know if buying an EV is worth it, if putting solar panels on the roof is a good investment. Nobody asks about carbon reduction or environmental impact. It’s always about whether it’s worth the expense…

Make it about the money, make it cheaper, and the lines will be around the block.

He’s exactly right. Don’t demand people make choices that make their life worse, supposedly for the collective good. Make products that are better and cheaper and we won’t need any lectures from Al Gore or Greta Thunberg to see people adopt them. We also won’t need any government subsidies. We’re better off letting the market handle this. Instead, we now have government money subsidizing charging stations that must include the inferior CCS2 charging plug.

A companion article titled “The Clean Energy Future Is a Battle for Hearts and Minds” focuses on how this new approach is penetrating with activists.

In conversations with activists, policymakers and corporate executives, it becomes clear that a save-the-planet argument doesn’t go very far. Most people won’t buy green technology unless it will clearly save them money and wows them with stunning designs or jaw-dropping performance.

Many, conservatives in particular, chafe at the prospect of the government forcing them to buy electric cars or ditch their natural gas appliances, polls show. That’s perhaps why those pitching the technology often avoid mentioning climate change. They emulate evangelists who don’t lead with Jesus when trying to win over nonbelievers.

That paragraph above is a pretty clear indication of just how far progressive activists still have to go when it comes to winning over conservatives. No one likes to be told what they have to buy or that they’re a bad person for not falling in line. Why is that a surprise to anyone?

Also, here’s some free advice for environmentalists: Making claims about evangelists not leading with Jesus probably isn’t the best way to win conservatives over. Frankly, I wonder which of the three authors of this article felt that was a good comparison (or an accurate one). Whoever it was might want to think a bit more deeply about why environmentalists are so easily compared to a religious faith. That’s exactly the sort of thing that turns people off. Saving money is good but no one wants to join your weird cult.

To be fair, sometimes people on the right sound a little cultish too. This happened at a car show in Wyoming.

When Mr. Lawson arranged $174,000 to match a federal grant to install charging stations at the city hall and airport, the Riverton City Council declined the money. The one public charging station in town, outside a sandwich shop, is often blocked by trucks, sometimes deliberately parked horizontally to make charging impossible.

During an obstacle race that was part of the car show, another Tesla driver beat all 40 cars. Onlookers were impressed but still skeptical. “It doesn’t fit everybody’s needs,” said Kent Wheeler, a technician at an auto body and paint shop.

Wyoming gets my vote as the most beautiful state in the country. If I had the money to buy a vacation home I’d want to buy it there. But come on people, blocking the public charging with pick-ups parked sideways is like something out of 3rd grade recess. Grow up a bit.

Speaking personally, I took my first real road trip in my Model 3 last week and it went great. I drove up the coast from Orange County to Monterey with many stops along the way. The original plan was to drive up Big Sur but it has been washed out in a few places since the big storms back in January so after a stop to see Hearst Castle we had to detour inland a bit to get to Monterey. Both the hotels we stayed at in Cambria and Carmel included free charging which was a nice perk. Other than that I spent a total of $55 to charge at four different Tesla superchargers during the 800+ mile trip. In my previous car this would have cost at least $300 worth of premium gas.

Those four stops to charge were all pretty easy. We didn’t plan any of them in advance. Two of them were 20 minute stops. My wife and I took a walk for those because we’d been driving for hours and needed a break from sitting. Two of the stops were 30 minutes and we timed them so we could take a break for lunch/dinner. I’m not saying it would be that easy everywhere you might want to go in the country (clearly it’s not so easy in Wyoming) but along the coast there are superchargers and slower destination chargers everywhere. We never had to wait for a space. Give it a few more years and you’ll be able to go anywhere without thinking about it.

Anyway, my own experience matches up with what the NY Times is just figuring out. Most people, including people on the left and right, aren’t interesting in saving the planet so much as they are in saving money.